ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2024
Comparative safety analysis of lacosamide and perampanel in epilepsy management: insights from FAERS database.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Tobacco smoke exposure and sleep problems: A secondary dataset analysis of NHANES and Mendelian randomization analyses.Tobacco induced diseases · 2026Article
- Psychiatric and behavioural side effects of antiseizure medications in epilepsy.Journal of neurology · 2025Review
- The real-world safety of lacosamide and perampanel in children: a disproportionality analysis of the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System.Therapeutic advances in drug safety · 2025Article
- Evaluating seizures associated with novel antineoplastic agents during breast cancer treatment using the Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System and Canada Vigilance Adverse Reaction Online Database.Therapeutic advances in drug safety · 2025Article
- Pharmacovigilance signal detection of psychiatric adverse events induced by third-generation antiepileptic drugs in children.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Epilepsy is a chronic neurological condition requiring effective management with minimal adverse effects. Lacosamide (LCM) and Perampanel (PER), two promising treatments, have distinct profiles that merit comparative analysis to guide clinical decision-making. Methods: This study utilizes a pharmacovigilance analysis of adverse events reported in the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System database from Q1 2009 to Q3 2023. Employing disproportionality and Bayesian analyses, we assessed and compared the AE signals associated with LCM and PER to elucidate their safety profiles in epilepsy treatment. Results: The analysis included 12,576 AE reports for LCM and 2,703 for PER, highlighting a higher incidence of psychiatric disorders, including aggression with LCM, and a notable association of PER with psychiatric disorders such as psychotic disorders and dizziness. LCM showed a relatively safe profile during pregnancy, whereas PER's data suggested caution due to reported cases of suicidal ideation and attempts. Conclusion: This comprehensive evaluation underscores the importance of understanding the distinct AE profiles of LCM and PER in clinical practice, providing valuable insights for personalized epilepsy management. Future research with rigorous prospective designs is recommended to validate these findings and explore the mechanisms underlying the reported adverse events.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.